Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Rear Engine Vs. Twin Engine  
User currently offlineBigphilnyc From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 4077 posts, RR: 54
Posted (11 years 4 months 2 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 3553 times:

I see how popular 717s are becoming, all in a day and age where hte twin seems to dominate.

Why would an airline want to choose a rear engine like a 717 over a more common twin like a small or middle 737?






Phil Derner Jr.
19 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineFredT From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2002, 2185 posts, RR: 26
Reply 1, posted (11 years 4 months 2 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 3507 times:

Now, there's a very complex answer to this. They would choose the 717...

...if the 717 meets their demands and requirements at a lower cost than the 737.

If the aircraft does the job cheaper, or is more suited for the airline at the same cost - it can have the engines installed in the john for all the airline cares.  Big grin

Cheers,
Fred



I thought I was doing good trying to avoid those airport hotels... and look at me now.
User currently onlineGoldenshield From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 6085 posts, RR: 14
Reply 2, posted (11 years 4 months 2 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 3509 times:

Flexibility. The 717 is based on a very successful product line (the DC-9), and also, it makes a great short hop aircraft. Based on data Ive seen (I cant quote the source, as it was a year or so ago), the dc-9 series has a better airframe record than the 737, in terms of safety.

But, it may also be for commonality. Take for instance Hawaiian. They have had dc-9-30's in their fleet for a long while. They have been wanting to upgrade them for a while as well. Well, with the 717, they get a newer aircraft, same size, but more fuel efficient.



Two all beef patties, special sauce, lettuce, cheese, pickles, onions on a sesame seed bun.
User currently offlineRick767 From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2000, 2662 posts, RR: 51
Reply 3, posted (11 years 4 months 2 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 3483 times:

Like FredT said, airlines couldn't give a you know what. What they look at when selecting a new aircraft type is how well the capacity and performance will work for them, cost, flexibility, commonality with the exisitng birds (being replaced), commonality with other aircraft in the fleet, etc....

The airline I work for is probably going to select an Airbus order for longhaul ops this year, replacing the 767-300 aircraft. This isn't because the Airbus is tecnhically better than the Boeing equivalent, etc... (that is arguable...) but it boils down to what is going to be cheapest in the long run!



I used to love the smell of Jet-A in the morning...
User currently offlineIkarus From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2001, 3524 posts, RR: 2
Reply 4, posted (11 years 4 months 2 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 3466 times:

First of all, the 717 is a twin - it has 2 engines

Secondly, the engine placement is subject to a lot of factors. For instance, engines at the rear allow for a cleaner wing design, a more quiet cabin, less risk of dirt ingestion, less ground clearance and a shorter landing gear, which saves weight and space in the belly of the aircraft, .... There are advantages. The main disadvantage is the maintenance (less accessibility) and the requirements of a T-tail (deep stall risk) and the issue of uncontained engine failures near the bulkhead & hydraulics.

Underwing engines have their own advantages - easy accessibility, they reduce the required strength of the wing if well placed (by acting as weights, they counteract some of the lift, and so the wing needs less strength), ....


Sometimes one design is more suitable, sometimes the other. (For small aircraft, tailmounted engines are generally better). Placing the engines under the wing is by no means the optimum, most modern decision - it all depends on the role of the aircraft, its size, and other factors.

Regards

Ikarus


User currently offlineM717 From United States of America, joined Dec 2002, 608 posts, RR: 4
Reply 5, posted (11 years 4 months 2 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 3446 times:

"First of all, the 717 is a twin - it has 2 engines,"

I'm surprised it took 4 posts for someone to point this out.


User currently offlinePositive rate From Australia, joined Sep 2001, 2143 posts, RR: 1
Reply 6, posted (11 years 4 months 2 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 3398 times:

Also having rear-mounted engines reduces asymmetric problems in the event of an engine failure or shutdown.

User currently offlineLstc From Canada, joined Jun 2003, 320 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (11 years 4 months 2 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 3395 times:

the dc-9 series has a better airframe record than the 737, in terms of safety.


Huh? I'll have to disagree with that statement. There have been over 4000 737s of all variants delivered. As far as I know the grand total for DC-9s and variants is in the 1000 range.

If you do a detailed search of the safety records, considering the fleet sizes and flight hours, I think you will quickly discover that the 737 wins hands down.


User currently offlinePositive rate From Australia, joined Sep 2001, 2143 posts, RR: 1
Reply 8, posted (11 years 4 months 2 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 3362 times:

"Huh? I'll have to disagree with that statement. There have been over 4000 737s of all variants delivered. As far as I know the grand total for DC-9s and variants is in the 1000 range.

If you do a detailed search of the safety records, considering the fleet sizes and flight hours, I think you will quickly discover that the 737 wins hands down".




Let's not forget the 737 did have it's share of problems- rudder problems/reversals and whatnot. The DC-9 never suffered from these types of problems or accidents. Also look at the number of DC-9's still flying in the world today- goes to show how robust a plane it is.

I bet there are more classic DC-9's flying today than there are 737-200's. The total number of DC-9's built was 976, production ending in 1982. The reason production stopped was because Douglas went on to build the MD-80 series- a more fuel efficient and quiet airplane than the DC-9.


User currently offlineXFSUgimpLB41X From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 4218 posts, RR: 37
Reply 9, posted (11 years 4 months 2 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 3294 times:

Definitely quite amusing... I kept reading the first posts in great detail trying to find the first person to point out that at "rear engine" plane is also a twin....


Chicks dig winglets.
User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29805 posts, RR: 58
Reply 10, posted (11 years 4 months 2 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 3295 times:

The makers of the VC-10, IL-62, 727, Yak 40, Yak 42, Falcon 50, Falcon 900, Trident might disagree with that.


OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlineIkarus From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2001, 3524 posts, RR: 2
Reply 11, posted (11 years 4 months 2 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 3269 times:

L-188: You forgot the DC-10, MD-11, L-1011


and any plane having an APU in the rear...  Big grin


If we're gonna be anal, let's do it properly Big grin


User currently offlineB747Skipper From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (11 years 4 months 2 weeks 1 day ago) and read 3258 times:

Dear friends -
Why an airline operator selects a certain type of aircraft, there are many reasons, such as financial (cost of airplane and its operation), commonality with the existing fleet (maintenance and parts) and more...
xxx
We have wars about Airbus vs. Boeing, used to be Boeing vs. Douglas, I feel it is ridiculuous and childish to compare airplanes on the basis of some of the statements that are sometimes made in the forum. There are no "better" airplane vs. "other airplane"... there are "better airplanes" for such an operation, such an airline and... economic considerations...
xxx
I am a pilot, therefore merely involved with training and operations... my point of view, as pilot, of an airplane with engines in the tail (727) or engines located under the wing is strictly operations considerations...
xxx
Generally speaking, engines located under the wing are easier to maintain as they are close to the ground, sometimes no stand required to check oil... In the design also (engineering) airplanes having tail engine require fuel lines and shrouds to protect these lines, since tanks are far away... in the wings... some of these features make airplanes with tail engines somewhat heavier...
xxx
By the pilot standpoint, engines in the tail make the VMC speeds lower, therefore somewhat easier to fly in case of the failure of an engine. Another consideration, is when flying in icing conditions, with tail engines, ice accumulated on the wing (or fuselage) may end up to be damaging an engine.
xxx
In the 727 when we were to operate in icing conditions, we did place the engine anti-ice ON, as well as the wing leading edge anti-ice systems. In a wing mounted engine airplane, engine anti-ice is sufficient, the wing anti-ice is rarely (if ever) used... I recall of my days with PanAm, there were several engine failures in 727 because of ice ingestion... even the fuselage top VHF antenna in the 727 had to be heated, that was "critical"...
xxx
Another consideration, most if not all twins with tail mounted engines as well as the 727 and the Tridents, all have T-Tail design... the behavior of the T-Tail surfaces may often be a problem in flight stall and/or stall recoveries. Some airplanes in addition of a "stall shaker" require a "stick pusher"...
xxx
I sometimes fly as passenger in MD-80 series airplanes, lovely cabin, in the Y class section, the 3+2 configuration is much nicer than 3+3 of the 737/757s, and the engines are far in the back... very little noise... yet I am known to be a "Boeing man"...
xxx
Happy contrails  Smile
(s) Skipper


User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29805 posts, RR: 58
Reply 13, posted (11 years 4 months 2 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 3244 times:

Ikarus, we also forgot the TU-154!


OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlineFredT From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2002, 2185 posts, RR: 26
Reply 14, posted (11 years 4 months 1 week 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 3118 times:

One of the major drawbacks of rear mounted engines is the structural beefing up (read: added weight) required of the wing attachments and rear fuselage to carry the weight of the engines. Remember, the aircraft is resting on its wings when flying. The load path has to go from the wings to the engine mounts, and the engines are among the heaviest components. Ikarus hinted at this, but it deserves a bit more attention IMO.

You can also get interesting effects when reversing a rear mounted engine, blanking out the vertical stabiliser reducing your directional control. You also get that rearward wing placement, leaving you with the airflow around the loooong nose to cope with when the direction of travel through the air is not aligned with the fuselage.

I once wrote a small (five days work or so) paper, investigating and summing up the pro's and cons of different engine mounting (and starting) methods. Left me wondering how on earth they ever decided that rear engines were a good idea on an airliner!

BTW... in my very unresearched experience, rear mounted engines means a nosier cabin overall, and very much noisier in the rear. It seems there is at least one person who disagrees. Based on fact or opinion? Interested in hearing your take on it more in detail.

Cheers,
Fred



I thought I was doing good trying to avoid those airport hotels... and look at me now.
User currently offlineIkarus From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2001, 3524 posts, RR: 2
Reply 15, posted (11 years 4 months 1 week 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 3110 times:

FredT: I have never flown in a rear-mounted engined aircraft. I'm quoting our lectures on aircraft design here when stating that the cabin is more quiet - in general (except the rear, which is much noisier).

I think the idea is that much of the noise originates from the engine itself, and from its exhaust. So seats far ahead of the engine suffer mostly the noise of the air passing by the fuselage, with only a little engine noise. Those roughly parallel to the engine will suffer the noise of the engine much more noticeably, and those behind the engine endure the noise generated by the shear layers of air in the engine exhaust. So, in a plane, the most quiet seats would be in the front and the noisiest towards the rear. With rear-mounted engines, more seats are ahead of the engines, so more seats suffer less noise. However, that ignores how much of the noise is actually passed through the fuselage skin as vibrations - perhaps rear-mounted engines are often too rigidly attached, with too much vibration transmission into the rest of the plane?

Regards

Ikarus


User currently offlineFredT From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2002, 2185 posts, RR: 26
Reply 16, posted (11 years 4 months 1 week 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 3108 times:

Ikarus,
own experience paxing and aero design literature/classes here. Engine noise coming through the structure being the likely culprit. Don't ask for references, don't have them. It would appear the subject is open to debate. Let's hope noone has investigated it properly, nothing spoils a good debate as much as someone knowing the facts! Think we could get a few mil euros from somewhere for a joint venture investigation? In other words, to go have a great time flying around and listening? Er... I mean, perform long and tedious research...  Big grin

Spent lots of time in old F28s as a youngster, living where flying is the way to travel. I recall the noise as being close to blinding, on top of deafening. Big grin

Cheers,
Fred



I thought I was doing good trying to avoid those airport hotels... and look at me now.
User currently offlinePositive rate From Australia, joined Sep 2001, 2143 posts, RR: 1
Reply 17, posted (11 years 4 months 1 week 5 days ago) and read 3063 times:

FredT i would disagree with you about rear mounted engines meaning a noiser cabin overall. Perhaps the F-28- being an "old" generation jet was like that with it's very low bypass engines. But in the case of planes like the 717, DC-9, MD80 and the 727 it's proven fact that the cabin is overall quiter, except if you are sitting very close to the engines.

User currently offlineFredT From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2002, 2185 posts, RR: 26
Reply 18, posted (11 years 4 months 1 week 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 3058 times:

Positive rate,
proven fact? Proven where? Not disagreeing nor saying you are wrong, I am merely curious. As I was saying, I'm mainly going on my own opinion from paxing experience. Yes, read and heard the same as my take on it, but can't even recall where so it's not really valid information.  Smile

And yes, the F28 engines probably make more noise inside the cabin than anything regardless of where you mount the engines. Including on another aircraft! Big grin

Cheers,
Fred



I thought I was doing good trying to avoid those airport hotels... and look at me now.
User currently offlineB747Skipper From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (11 years 4 months 1 week 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 3061 times:

FredT and Positive rate...
xxx
Interesting little detail I remember when I was a teen, when the first 707s and DC8s were starting to operate, I was living with my parents in Paris, and watching French TV - it was start of operations of Caravelles SE-210 with Air France... among other things, they were proud how "silent" the cabin was, to compare to the wing mounted JT-4 engines of the 707...
xxx
I guess, sponsored by Sud-Est Aviation, Air France and the music industry, they made a little publicity on TV, by making a recording by, the then pop music singer Sacha Distel, of the song "Oh, lonesome me" (french lyrics are "Oh, quelle nuit") - recording the master tape aboard the Caravelle while in flight... Just thought the trivia would interest some of you...
xxx
Happy contrails  Smile
(s) Skipper


Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Rear Engine Vs. Twin Engine
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Tech/Ops related posts only!
  • Not Tech/Ops related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Mixture Setting Vs. Engine Temperature posted Sat Nov 29 2003 19:55:56 by Marc Kobaissi
Single Vs Twin Fins. posted Tue Jul 1 2003 19:06:46 by LMML 14/32
Engine Thrust: Rating Vs. Real Differences posted Sun Sep 24 2006 20:49:42 by A342
Engine Of 772ER Vs 772LR posted Mon Jul 31 2006 01:23:07 by ORDRyan28
A380 Vs 777 Engine Size posted Wed Mar 1 2006 22:43:06 by Okees
Rear Mounted Engine Question. posted Wed Feb 8 2006 01:22:20 by JumboJim747
Engine Failures - The Law Vs The Pilots Decision posted Sun Nov 13 2005 11:30:48 by Julesmusician
Rear Engine Aircraft: Slow Climb? posted Sat Sep 21 2002 23:20:47 by BigPhilNYC
Where Is The Rear Engine Mounted On The Tristar posted Tue Jul 23 2002 09:37:06 by Trent_800
Jet Engine VS. Jet Engine posted Wed Apr 18 2001 03:47:48 by Bryan Becker

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format